Whither thou goest, rogue?

[Consonant Dude]

In 5e it seems like skills are being dialed back a bit. Stats are the primary driver, with skills being a minor modifier on top of the stat. A +1 or +2 on a stat of 13-18 is minor.

Scaling power are also being dialed down a bit too, so probably sneak attacking will not be as big a deal as it has been.

So what does that leave the rogue?

WRT skills I don't think it's a good idea to give them unique ones. Frex in 1e when only the thief had a "hide in shadows" skill it implied no one else could even attempt it. That was annoying and stupid.

What they might get is the ability to eliminate penalties. For example while the 'Spellcraft' skill might only be a +1 bonus to the skill check, it would make sense in some campaigns if every non-spellcaster got a -5 to the check. Likewise perhaps armour gives you a -AC bonus to sneak checks, but a thief can negate that.

Is that enough to make a class out of? I dunno. What design space does what we know of 5e leave for the Rogue?

Themes. I'd make the Rogue the class having access to more themes at once than any others. I also think there are a few really cool classes that would work better as roguish themes.

A "Thief theme" is an obvious one. Assassin too. And I really LOVE the bard but I am thinking it might be better off as a theme too.

Then, make also really cool craft and profession themes. Merchants, Weaponmaster, architects, and so on.

What else can be done? I'M thinking if 5e wants to revive the idea of the DnD endgame, Rogues become the ultimate guild masters. Men and women of influence both legit and underground.

Rogues would be major players in politics, economy, arts, criminal activities, etc...

 

[Mattachine]

I have also always liked the "fake it" aspect of thieves/rogues with regard to magic. Even 1e rogues could use scrolls, and occasionally some other items only usable by clerics and magic-users.

 

[howandwhy99]

The Thief's main focus is on stealing, usually covertly or by trickery. They are not warriors or wizards or even clerics.

A thief does overlap a bit, however, with each of the others in its own way. Thieves can use and play with some magics, but usually manipulate others to perform magic for them. They can engage in combat, but they are best at sneaking when there is none and then trying start and end a combat quickly by ambush. They also deal directly with people like Clerics do, but it is usually through lies and intimidation.

The organizations they operate are about organized crime. They can work for or run thieves guilds and at high levels command large groups of characters to pull of extensive law breaking schemes. At lower levels they probably work more with brigands and doing stuff like ambushing merchants on the road.

On the sea they are pirates and, well, pretty much do the same thing along the sea lanes of trade. At higher levels they may simply be the organizer, the pirate king if you will, who captains many ship crews in covert action.

The thing is, lawbreaking simply has a smaller scope to it than the other three core classes. That isn't bad, it's more about how much opportunity for advancement is available.

Another point to remember is, how much overlap do thieves' objectives have with the other adventuring classes? Due to their particular purview they are often the problem class when it comes to teamwork (and let's not even get into assassins). Plundering tombs may be up their alley, but saving townsfolk rather than fleecing them isn't exactly their raison d'etre.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'm sure there will still be a way to play a "skill monkey" character in the game, as that is an important archetype for exploration-type adventures. How they do that remains to be seen.

Thief is a background and play style, so I can go with rogue as the generic class. All thieves (could be) rogues, but not all rogues need to be thieves. Fafhrd notwithstanding.

One thing I know for certain: the rogue/rouge dichotomy will continue in the next edition!

 

[Mattachine]

I hope the game does not go back to the term "thief". I loved when the term "rogue" came into play, since, imaginatively, it opened so many more possibilities. Just as fighter is very open-ended, I like base class names to be very general so that players have an easy time fitting their ideas into the game.

 

[steeldragons]

I hope the game does not go back to the term "thief". I loved when the term "rogue" came into play, since, imaginatively, it opened so many more possibilities. Just as fighter is very open-ended, I like base class names to be very general so that players have an easy time fitting their ideas into the game.

I must "spread some around" before hitting you up again, Mattachine.

But yes, 100% agree...for all base classes, but particularly here. The term Rogue was much better for the skill-based class than the more narrow "Thief". Though I find myself still using them interchangeably, but "officially", in print, I think Rogue works best and sparks the imagination.

--SD

 

[satori01]

Rogue should be a theme, while thief should be a class.
This allows for a focused, flavorful class with specific abilities, and someone that wants to play a street -smart fighter can avoid multi-classing.

Thieves should do less damage on a basic hit than a fighter, but have ways to set up an attack that does more damage.

I also think the social aspect of thieves should be played up....wether it be
Henry Hill, Donnie Brasco, Danny Ocean,or Indiana Jones...Thieves should have "I know a guy" abilities.

I would also like to see the return of Thieves Cant....in a rules light pre NWP proficiency game, Thieves Can't saved our collective butts many a time.